AIMS: This study examined the relationships between myocardial strain (epsilon) and strain rate (SR) data, derived from both two-dimensional (2D) speckle tracking and tissue Doppler imaging (TDI), and indices of left ventricular (LV) morphology to assess size-(in)dependence of these functional parameters. METHODS AND RESULTS: 2D speckle tracking and TDI echocardiograms were performed in 79 healthy adult male volunteers (age range: 22-76 years). 2D speckle tracking allowed the determination of myocardial epsilon and peak systolic and early diastolic SR in radial, circumferential, and longitudinal planes, whereas TDI provided longitudinal epsilon only. Mean circumferential and radial epsilon and SR were calculated from data collected at six basal myocardial regions, whereas mean longitudinal epsilon and SR derived from both 2D speckle tracking and TDI were calculated from the basal septum and basal lateral walls. Standard 2D echocardiography allowed the assessment of LV morphology including LV length, LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-diastolic diameter, mean wall thickness, and LV mass. The association of myocardial epsilon and SR data with relevant LV morphology indices was determined by adoption of the general, non-linear allometric model (y= ax(b)). The b exponent +/- 95% confidence intervals were reported. The relationships between the measures of LV morphology and myocardial epsilon and SR were highly variable and generally weak. Only two relationships displayed at least a moderate effect size (r > or = 0.30): (i) 2D circumferential peak systolic SR and LV end-diastolic dimension (b = -0.92; -1.35 to 0.5, r = 0.44) and (ii) TDI longitudinal peak systolic SR and LV length (b = -1.39; -2.11 to -0.66, r = 0.41). CONCLUSION: The empirical relationships derived in this cohort do not support the need to scale myocardial epsilon and SR derived from 2D speckle or TDI for any index of LV morphology.
AIMS: This study examined the relationships between myocardial strain (epsilon) and strain rate (SR) data, derived from both two-dimensional (2D) speckle tracking and tissue Doppler imaging (TDI), and indices of left ventricular (LV) morphology to assess size-(in)dependence of these functional parameters. METHODS AND RESULTS: 2D speckle tracking and TDI echocardiograms were performed in 79 healthy adult male volunteers (age range: 22-76 years). 2D speckle tracking allowed the determination of myocardial epsilon and peak systolic and early diastolic SR in radial, circumferential, and longitudinal planes, whereas TDI provided longitudinal epsilon only. Mean circumferential and radial epsilon and SR were calculated from data collected at six basal myocardial regions, whereas mean longitudinal epsilon and SR derived from both 2D speckle tracking and TDI were calculated from the basal septum and basal lateral walls. Standard 2D echocardiography allowed the assessment of LV morphology including LV length, LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-diastolic diameter, mean wall thickness, and LV mass. The association of myocardial epsilon and SR data with relevant LV morphology indices was determined by adoption of the general, non-linear allometric model (y= ax(b)). The b exponent +/- 95% confidence intervals were reported. The relationships between the measures of LV morphology and myocardial epsilon and SR were highly variable and generally weak. Only two relationships displayed at least a moderate effect size (r > or = 0.30): (i) 2D circumferential peak systolic SR and LV end-diastolic dimension (b = -0.92; -1.35 to 0.5, r = 0.44) and (ii) TDI longitudinal peak systolic SR and LV length (b = -1.39; -2.11 to -0.66, r = 0.41). CONCLUSION: The empirical relationships derived in this cohort do not support the need to scale myocardial epsilon and SR derived from 2D speckle or TDI for any index of LV morphology.
Authors: André La Gerche; Andrew T Burns; Andrew J Taylor; Andrew I Macisaac; Hein Heidbüchel; David L Prior Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Arthur E Stillman; Matthijs Oudkerk; David A Bluemke; Menko Jan de Boer; Jens Bremerich; Ernest V Garcia; Matthias Gutberlet; Pim van der Harst; W Gregory Hundley; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Dirkjan Kuijpers; Raymond Y Kwong; Eike Nagel; Stamatios Lerakis; John Oshinski; Jean-François Paul; Riemer H J A Slart; Vinod Thourani; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Bernd J Wintersperger Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Kenya Kusunose; Marc S Penn; Youhua Zhang; Yuanna Cheng; James D Thomas; Thomas H Marwick; Zoran B Popović Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Fergus P McCarthy; Jamie M O'Driscoll; Paul T Seed; Anna Placzek; Carolyn Gill; Jenie Sparkes; Lucilla Poston; Mike Marber; Andrew H Shennan; Basky Thilaganathan; Paul Leeson; Lucy C Chappell Journal: Hypertension Date: 2021-08-30 Impact factor: 10.190